We have reduced support for legacy browsers.

What does this mean for me? You will always be able to play your favorite games on Kongregate. However, certain site features may suddenly stop working and leave you with a severely degraded experience.

What should I do? We strongly urge all our users to upgrade to modern browsers for a better experience and improved security.

Kongregate is a community-driven browser games portal with an open platform for all web games.
Get your games in front of thousands of users while monetizing through ads and virtual goods.
Learn more »

[Here](http://www.islandpacket.com/2013/01/27/2356957/leonard-pitts-jr-manti-teo-and.html) is an interesting insight to the topic we are discussing.
My pal Leonard points out some harsh realities about how our current techno-domain is shaping our social dynamics.
Of course we don’t behave in RL as we do on-line.
At least in RL (audio & visual), ya can see the many nuances that help define mood, intent, etc. But, even then, one is really not all that sure of what exactly the “honesty quotient” involved is.
Lying is a reality.
Lying ON-LINE and being able to be believed AS MUCH AS THE OTHER PERSON (needs?) **WANTS** is a wide-open ballgame.
This is in vika’s domain somewhat: I wonder if—NAY, when—they will come up w/ a verifiable “lie-detector”. It really can’t be all that far off now.

This sort of aggressive behavior occurs in people on all sides of all arguments on the internet, not just atheists. So why stress atheism in your post? I feel like your question is more of a jab at a particular group than it is a genuine interest in whether or not people act the same in real life as they do on the internet (the answer: no, they don’t).

> *Originally posted by **[congregate5](/forums/9/topics/290842?page=7#posts-6808059):***
>
> This sort of aggressive behavior occurs in people on all sides of all arguments on the internet, not just atheists. So why stress atheism in your post? I feel like your question is more of a jab at a particular group than it is a genuine interest in whether or not people act the same in real life as they do on the internet (the answer: no, they don’t).
Why are you trying to avoid the subject of the particular aggressiveness of atheists I am invoking in the OP?
I am aware all groups are aggressive on the internet, but practically anywhere with religion (in the internet), I bet you 1 internets that the Atheist is the one arrogantly stating the deity they believe in is not real, hold the past of their belief against them, and question their faith when they even say their not “religious”.
> …genuine interest in whether or not people act the same in real life as they do on the internet
No, they don’t, you’re right. They are hiding behind closed doors. Everyone. However, why in particular are Atheists generally more aggressive.

> No, they don’t, you’re right. They are hiding behind closed doors. Everyone. However, why in particular are Atheists generally more aggressive.
Easy one. Because they are visible, dissenting, minority as soon as they express their opinion. Which unless you are super giant, is a tough spot to be in. It tends to breed aggression. Especially when the rival is one of the largest, wealthiest, most powerful international consortiums with considerable sway in everything from nation states to the man on the street and a particular history of violence. It’s a regular David and Goliath story…
Not to say that it excuses being a dick. Tsk tsk. But really, who’s surprised?

Perhaps I might add that they aren’t a minority where I come from. It’s the religious ones who are very much in the minority, even taking into account the large numbers of Islamic immigrants in London.
I’m probably far less anti-religion in the flesh than on the internet because I don’t need to be. I don’t need to go to church to keep up appearances, and I don’t need to justify my agnostic stance to anyone. My Islamic friends accept my godless ways and make no attempt to convert me. Occasional cold-callers from the local churches are pretty laid back about my refusal to join their numbers. It’s generally only the Jehovah’s Witnesses who are persistant, and a short lecture on the joys of Satanism and blood transfusions is usually enough to get rid of them.
At a glance, this perception of aggressive atheism does seem to be a peculiarly American problem.

I’d be truly surprised if I they weren’t Beuval. There are truly pretty few places where that is the case. I’m assuming you are in London? Census seems to think that they are.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion\_in\_London](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_London)
I agree that “aggressive atheism on the internet” is a symptom of the America’s, but, that almost goes without saying just by representation. Beyond that, I agree that within the US religious/non religious confrontation and problems likely has alot more teeth to it as well. I also don’t see it as something likely to get better. There is a Powershift in process here and those things rarely go all that smoothly. As religion becomes increasingly marginalized I imagine it will become more insular and hostile, which will foster a similar result in it’s opponents.

> *Originally posted by **[karmakoolkid](/forums/9/topics/290842?page=7#posts-6805488):***
>
> [Here](http://www.islandpacket.com/2013/01/27/2356957/leonard-pitts-jr-manti-teo-and.html) is an interesting insight to the topic we are discussing.
>
> My pal Leonard points out some harsh realities about how our current techno-domain is shaping our social dynamics.
There is an old theory, first expoused by Albert Mehrabian in 1971. His book, _Silent Messages_ contained his extensive research on non-verbal communivcation. It is where the 7% rule that is often bandied about, originates. Only 7% of our person-to-person communication is in the words we communicate. The rest is in tone, pitch, inflection of voice, and in subconscious body language.
Even if you include voice chat for the vocal elements, body-language non-verbal cues make up between 50 and 55% of your message. So by the best standards of online communication, you’re losing half the message immediately. In something like the forum, 93% of the information you intended to convey is absent, leaving just the words themselves, stripped of their secondary meaning, and much ofthe subtle intent.
Hence Karma’s attempt to add much of the inflection back with novel typing schemes, and the rest of us often going to some lengths to ensure our points be understood.
If we were to graph the problem, it would look like this:
![](http://chelsiemegan.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/communication_f2f_message3components_6x4.png?w=640)
the only way we’ll be able to conquer that problem through online communication is via full-body avatar-based embodied interaction. Speaking to one another and with subconscious habits relayed through our avatar forms in a 3D chatroom environment. That won’t help with forums of course, although we might see posts more as video-clips of the user’s avatar speaking through their avatar either with their birth-voice or with another provided for them in the cases where the user no-longer has a natural one, or a disability prevents ready ease of communication via it.
Getting back to your link Karma, this becomes relevant when we consider these various sections:
> [Sourced from Karma’s Link](http://www.islandpacket.com/2013/01/27/2356957/leonard-pitts-jr-manti-teo-and.html)
>
> _And missing a more fascinating question. What does it say that this story is even possible, that it is even credible a man could have an emotionally intimate “relationship” with a woman who did not exist?_
>
> _Here, then, in a nutshell, is the great paradox of the communications revolution. It has left us both better connected and yet, farther apart, because actual contact is no longer required. Indeed, we’ll likely see more stories like these as texting substitutes for conversation, Facebook supplants friendship and we “live” ever more online._
>
> _Some of us remember a day when she wasn’t your girlfriend unless she’d allowed you to hold her hand or steal a kiss. You know, physical contact in an analog world._
Relationships that exist solely online are nothing new. As early as the 1980s, participants in MUDs and MUSHes, would often form lasting relationships. One woman in LambdaMoo brought the community together and became the glue binding several hundred individuals so much that when she stopped logging in, a search was carried out and an online funeral held. When two members of the community finally tracked her down, she was a he, and he had died of cancer six months prior – when she stopped logging in.
As the technology improves, so must the fidelity of the relationships. Currently actual physical intercourse via the internet is rare, but does happen. Teledildonic devices – remote controlled two-party sex aids, via the medium of the internet – are a very real thing. Still primitive, they convey that ‘physical contact in an analog world’ aspect that is missing from a lot of online interaction. Paradoxically, haptic vests and haptic gloves are not as common as teledildonic devices, despite the cost being about the same. These devices allow users to touch one another with their hands and feel the contact on their hands or on their bodies. It probably speaks volumes about the nature of the human animal, that the sex aids are in wider use than the telehaptic (remote touch) devices.
Still, as they improve in ability and decrease in price, that is likely to shift, and eventually we will see a time when ‘physical contact in an analog world’ is steadilly replaced by ‘physical contact in a digital world’. How soon? Well, I’m in my 30s now, and I fully expect to see it realised within my lifetime. But then I’m dealing much more closely with the state of the art in telehaptics research than most here, so I can see when it is likely to be realised.
Those further away, are often shocked by what we can do _now_ as they didn’t realise much of the basic technology has been with us since the early seventies, for example, and purchasable by the layperson since the mid 90s.
> [Sourced from Karma’s Link](http://www.islandpacket.com/2013/01/27/2356957/leonard-pitts-jr-manti-teo-and.html)
>
> _Of course, that was the olden days. Now so much of our world is digital – movies, music, shopping, books – it’s easy to believe everything just works better that way._
>
> _But guess what? Not everything does._
Opinion only. Presented as fact, from a writer who isn’t fully aware of the possibilities. Yes at the moment the physical is better – for a lot of people. Not for everyone. For those with moderately severe to very severe physical disabilities, the digital experience is so much better than the analogue one, and their plight is driving a heck of a lot of research that will have implications for everyone.
No, online will never be ‘better’ than physical for everyone, but just as physical will be better for some, online will be better for others, and from a practical point of view they will eventually be about equal in experience and perception.
> This is in vika’s domain somewhat: I wonder if—NAY, when—they will come up w/ a verifiable “lie-detector”. It really can’t be all that far off now.
We have a few. You can detect traces in a person’s speech by analysing how the pitch moves. You can detect when a thought is deliberately falsified by tracking how the brain areas are activated. A lie activates different areas than the truth does – or what that person truly believes to be the truth. Truth is accessing memory (midbrain) and parsing it directly to the speech centers. Lie is accessing minimal amounts of memory, then pausing, accessing imagination (cortex) and passing it to speech centers.
If we are reaching the point where embodied online presence is the norm, then we are reading brain signals as a matter of course.
That is the point at which an effectively foolproof lie detector is possible – channeled through the interface from a physical location next to the individual in question. It could not be carried out remotely, as it is conceivable the individual could have hacked the signal their brain is apparently putting out. It is just the sort of thing the ‘bio-hacker’ groups that exist _now_ would be interested in doing. Taking control of their own bodily output and altering the data to present the stance they wish to be seen to be presenting

> *Originally posted by **[DrOctaganapus2](/forums/9/topics/290842?page=1#posts-6247982):***
>
> I understand this is Serious Discussion, but every thread with the word “Religon” in it’s title, has a clusterfuck of atheists having a shit-storm anti-sematist party it seems about why their views **has** to be correct and a load of bull about anyone who is remotely religous. Do you, the “aggresive” atheists who go out of their way to prove there is no god, act like this in real life or are you acting like this solely because you are behind a computer screen?
>
> I am sorry if I seem rude, as I am well aware there are atheists that are both tolerable and tolerating, but the ones that feel the need to seek attention or cause trouble act like this in the outside world face-to-face with other people?
nope. i dont seek out debates, but if someone wants to peacefully discuss topics such as religion, then i would join them. just like on this forum. :)